I think he is an experiment, a low-man-on-the-totem-pole sent on a suicide mission to get himself ripped to shreds on the boards so that other members will know the limitations. Like those guys on Star Trek sent out to see if the planet is safe.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I can’t rebut this post without Godwinizing, so I’ll just assume you all can see its obvious flaws.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the flaws are that obvious. Passionate assholes who do nothing but throw somewhat over the top but interesting rhetoric into the conversational mix on a message board are not like passionate assholes who use such rhetoric to become ruthless dictators and start world wars.
Don’t think you aren’t Godwinizing just because you do it in a roundabout way.
[QUOTE=Charger]
I think he is an experiment, a low-man-on-the-totem-pole sent on a suicide mission to get himself ripped to shreds on the boards so that other members will know the limitations. Like those guys on Star Trek sent out to see if the planet is safe.
[/QUOTE]
No, no, you’ve got it all backwards…
I like him. He does tilt at the windmill of religion rather more than is good for him, but he has many laudable qualities. Such as:
A simple, rational approach to Good and Evil
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
In my terms, good is what makes things better for people, on purpose; evil is what makes things worse on purpose. I see no reason to believe evil is necessary. As far as the argument that “we wouldn’t know what good is without evil to contrast it”; even if true, my answer is “so what ?”
[/QUOTE]
and some pragmatic guidelines to implement it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A few at random : Personal freedom, within reasonable limits ( and yes, defining “reasonable” is where it gets complicated ). The sanctity ( in the non-religious sense ) of the mind; I’d rather be killed than brainwashed; I might be dead, but I’d die as me. Facts should trump theory. A general dislike of any form of authority, while recognizing that some form is necessary if society isn’t to disintegrate. Intelligence and knowledge. The primacy of the mind over the body; if one could adjust the mind to fit the body, or the body over the mind ( in cases such as transgenderism ), then the body should fit the mind. The belief that it is the mind that defines whether something is a person, and not DNA, species or even aliveness; I’d value a self aware AI over a fertilized human egg. The belief that there is no virtue in hard work in itself; that one should work as hard as it takes to accomplish your goals, and that if you work harder you’re not being virtuous, but self destructive.The belief that friendship is a higher order relationship than love, because love seems to involve lower standards, and a large helping of manipulativeness ( most of which appears to be instinctive, and is unconscious ).
As for how I’ve come to believe what I believe, I’ve never been systematic about it. My beliefs are just the end product of thirtyodd years of experience, reading and thinking.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I think nearly the exact opposite; as a rule is Compassion is power, ruthlessness is weakness. When protestors march in the streets of America or Spain or Britain, does the government kill them all ? No, because the governments there are strong; they do not fear mere protest. Tyrants are ruthless because tyranny is inherantly unstable; if they let up and let people organize, they will likely be overthrown. You can organize all you like, you aren’t likely to knock out the U.S. government.
Compassion is the mark of someone or something strong enough to not fear the object of compassion. Ruthlessness implies fear and desperation, the belief that you are so weak that given the smallest chance your enemies will overwhelm you.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, not giving the food away is definately bad. I see little difference between that and trying to shoot the hungry people, except it’s less honest. It’s an attempt to hurt or kill them without getting your hands personally bloody.
No, I’m suggeting that the people who say that the growers had a perfect right to burn that food are trying to have it both ways. If there’s nothing wrong in not deliberately starving people, then there’s nothing wrong in those those starving people storming your farm, killing you, and stealing everything, food and all. If compassion doesn’t matter, if ethics doesn’t matter, then the laws don’t matter either; why would they ? If we owe others no compassion, then we live in a dog eat dog society, then everyone is the enemy of everyone else. And if we are in the war of all against all, then the law is without ethical force. If ethics and compassion don’t matter, then society is a dead issue and you might as well grab what you can.
People who push this idea that the better off have a right to screw the less fortunate always want such rights to go only one way. It doesn’t work like that. If the strong have the right to screw the weak, then the weak have the right to gang up on the strong and rip them apart. In a dog eat dog society, everyone gets eaten, which why you don’t want this “I’ve got mine and screw everyone else !” attitude; sooner or later, someone else will apply that same attitude to you.
[/QUOTE]
And he thinks a secular society would have something to aim for.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
A better world. One more just, more equitable, more peaceful, wealthier, longer lived, with less pain and more pleasure, and so on.
I strongly disagree with the idea that we haven’t increased our total happiness. I have trouble believing that all the free people who in the past would have been slaves are not happier than they would be if they were worked to death under a whip. Or that women are not happier as free people instead of sex-chattel and brood mares. Or that the healthy people who would otherwise be suffering from plague after plague or just dead are not happier. Or that the parents who have NOT lost fourteen children before they were a year old are not happier than the ones in the past who did.
What has happened is that our standards have risen; we think that life should be pleasant, or even happy, instead of something to be endured. We also have forgotten just how hideous life was in the old days. Why do you think it’s a common feature of religions and older laws to forbid suicide, under various quite nasty threats ? Because for most of history, the rational choice was death; life was just that horrible. A religion or government that didn’t forbid suicide would probably soon have no followers.
< shrugs > If it makes the world a better place to live, it doesn’t matter if it’s arbitrary. I find things that we can’t just arbitrarily tweak to suit out desires to be worse, more often than not.
[/QUOTE]
And last but not least, he has a sense of humour.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
They are an excellent light snack. 
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Puppies ! Who doesn’t want puppies ? Nothing makes a Muslim happier than a puppy.
[/QUOTE]
So, he can stay, then? Long as he goes on the paper? OK, who calls the vet for an appointment for the…ah, happy fun time visit.
[QUOTE=matt]
I like him. He does tilt at the windmill of religion rather more than is good for him, but he has many laudable qualities. Such as…
[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you said (the light snack quip was pure genius). And I guess we all have our own mania, so yes, it’s goofy if (hypothetically)Der Trihs replies to a poll on electric toasters with a concern about religious zealots misusing them, but is it really any more goofy than, say, someone who can’t help wondering out loud what it would be like to eat this or that, when the thread isn’t really about that idea.
Der’s getting tutored?
Count me in the “neither 1 nor 2, like him as a poster” camp. He’s more abrasive in general than I am, but otherwise we agree about most everything.
Yes, even that.
Plus - cool name, cool name origin (my favourite)
On balance, I am also in the pro-Der Ttrihs camp. I dare say that’s because I am from the same end of the political spectrum (though he is a lot closer to the end than I am). I can certainly see how his uncompromising style might come across as just deliberate assholery.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I can’t rebut this post without Godwinizing, so I’ll just assume you all can see its obvious flaws.
[/QUOTE]
Oh please, we’re talking about your common garden variety assholes here not history’s greatest monster, a man who wasn’t an asshole as such a benign term belongs to lesser fiends then he.
[QUOTE=buns3000]
On balance, I am also in the pro-Der Ttrihs camp. I dare say that’s because I am from the same end of the political spectrum (though he is a lot closer to the end than I am). I can certainly see how his uncompromising style might come across as just deliberate assholery.
[/QUOTE]
And I, from the other end of the political spectrum, enjoy the fact that he does more damage to the left than I could possibly hope to.
Bah! Freak freely, and let the chips fall where they may. You get to keep Shodan, with our blessings.
[QUOTE=matt]
I like him. He does tilt at the windmill of religion rather more than is good for him, but he has many laudable qualities. Such as:
A simple, rational approach to Good and Evil.
[/QUOTE]
Not to steal his thunder or anything, but he got that from me. Years before, back when I was Libertarian, I had defined goodness as that which edifies.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the universe (or multiverse or manifold-omni-transcendent-more-than-anyone-can-imagine-verse or whatever) exists necessarily and is deterministic. I have two questions. Which branch of physics deals with goodness (defined as that which morally edifies)? And what is the causal event that precedes a quantum fluctuation?
[QUOTE=buns3000]
On balance, I am also in the pro-Der Ttrihs camp. I dare say that’s because I am from the same end of the political spectrum (though he is a lot closer to the end than I am). I can certainly see how his uncompromising style might come across as just deliberate assholery.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not an “uncompromising style”, it’s a total inability to deal with facts instead of opinions. This MB is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, and he does more than just about anyone here to spread ignorance.
Most of his opinions are shared by at least one poster here who can actually make an argument and engage in debate. I don’t see the value of someone who just slings shit and smears whole classes of people.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Not to steal his thunder or anything, but he got that from me.
[/QUOTE]
All deep thought stems from one of your SDMB handles. I have also noticed that Jack Handy borrowed from you liberally. Or libertarianally. You get the idea.
[QUOTE=Eolbo]
Oh please, we’re talking about your common garden variety assholes here not history’s greatest monster, a man who wasn’t an asshole as such a benign term belongs to lesser fiends then he.
[/QUOTE]
Jimmy Carter?
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
Jimmy Carter?
[/QUOTE]
No, no, no. Obviously he was referring to The Creature From The Black Lagoon.
There’s a difference?
Regards,
Shodan
All you people who think he’s extreme, but says things that other people are too wimpy to say out loud? He’s just Ann Coulter in drag.
Rather have the Creature from the Black Lagoon, myself.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
All you people who think he’s extreme, but says things that other people are too wimpy to say out loud? He’s just Ann Coulter in drag.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, that’s something I meant to say as well. He doesn’t have the book sales, but he uses the exact same methods. So if you’re OK with him, you should be OK with Coulter. At least she’s smart enough to make some money off her nasty brand of politics. So, if we “need” someone like him, then the country “needs” someone like Coulter. If he adds value to the debate, then so does she. Unless, of course, hatred and meanness are only bad when your political opponents use them as tactics.